S:C

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    413

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by S:C

  2. Posted · Edited by S:C

    22 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

    ekaggatā (…) 

    you quote this

    MAHACATTA

    might be the paradigm shift - and the ‚usual one pointedness‘ might come through conscious stepping back or letting go (just as @Mark Foote knows how to describe so eloquently) , so how the paradigm shift might have been set in motion can be debated but not verified?


    another point connected to the non-dual misnoming in the other thread concerns the ‚right‘ view question (I had hoped I could restrain myself from expanding further on it, but no): 

     

    isn‘t that connected to what @Apech structured up there in the nondual misnomer thread so coherently? the linked sutra talks about ‚right with defilements‘, ‚noble right‘ (so without defilements) and wrong. the right without defilements could maybe be a ‚right of a higher logical order‘, as explained by the Zhentong Madhyamika, a ‚right’ without contradictions, - Nargajunas absolute negation might ring a bell here to.
    at some point of evaluation (in the right with defilements view) sense data view and right interpretational view and following that the consequences for (right) deed or refraining from that lets you maybe (?) always (?) end up at a contradiction, stalemate or an impasse in your evaluation if you dig deep enough. Thus … there is a right without defilements (or contradictions), but how to get closer… well who knows, could be purely hypothetical, but logically wouldn’t need to be, - could be ‚real‘? Something that touches upon this somewhere in the texts?

    It could also shine a bit of light on the controversy among the branches of Buddhism, if and when lying can be considered appropriate, if I ain’t mistaken, please correct me if I am…

    • Thanks 1

  7. Posted · Edited by S:C

    1 hour ago, Apech said:

    if you followed this process of enquiry to the end you would be left with the finest of fine substances which is called Prakriti - which is the basis of everything that can be said to exist - like a universal subtle substance.  But then when you are left with observing the Prakriti having deconstructed all other levels of being you have something else which is there - you the observer.  The observing self is called Purusha and is not like everything else in that it is not made of Prakriti.  So you end up with a duality of two fundamentally real absolutes - Purusha and Prakriti.  This is a great analysis (or so most people think) but leaves a bog problem because if you have two absolutes how do they possibly interact since there is nothing of one in the other - they have no relation.

     

    So then begins the question - how do I resolve this?  How can I get from a dual 'solution' to a non-dual one?  Or can I subsume all Prakriti in Purusha or visa versa?  Or to put it in more western terms how do I resolve the subject object duality? 

    Merci @Apech.

    It really is a misnomer to say anything is clear, I’ll try to remember that and try to say: understandable from my current perspective at the current time and place.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted · Edited by S:C
    Self restraint

    14 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

    right thinking is inherently shrouded in paradox and it's time for breakfast.

    That sounds just right - for now. I do skip breakfast these days, it’s a bad habit of ‘entangled mind’, this stuff is just too personal and thus I will restrain myself from asking what is “right” thinking for you, definitory.

    I will try to answer open questions (hopefully) later with a calmer mind, until so far, thanks at all for participating here. 

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    14 hours ago, Daniel said:

    I've observed non-dualists often get "tangled" in contradictions when rigidly and literally applying this idea of "non-duality".  It's not just contradictions in their argumentation and preachng that becomes contradictory, but, also their behavior.  Their stated dharma deviates from the dharma they actually practice.

     

    Much of this is explained by realizing that "non-dual" is actually "dual", but that the "duality" is being actively denied.  This denial is what is producing the deviation between the stated dharma and the dharma which is practiced.  The denial also produces the contradictions in their argumentation and preaching.  But, denial is not all bad.  Just like everything, it has its proper time / place / context where it is healthy and useful.  When it is out of context, deviations and contradictions are produced.

    This is an important point to me, I hope to come back to later at a different point in time, so consider it just as a personal bookmark - and please carry on. Thanks @Daniel! That was very clearly written.

  10. Posted · Edited by S:C

    “This means that the Buddha’s warning about wrongly drawing out the meaning of a discourse does not apply only to attempts to translate impersonal language into personal language.”

     

    That is supposed to say, that just because first monk and second monk evaluate their sense data as stressful, they are not supposed to state this in an impersonal way, as this is or could be influencing others, who might not come to this conclusion. 
     

    “Other considerations—such as whether a teaching is appropriate to a particular context or purpose (attha)—can also play a determining role.” 
     

    How and who determines what is appropriate? Is that determination impersonal or personal?

    Did the Buddha believe in free will or determinism?

     

    “Statements have to be judged not only as descriptive, but also as performative: what they induce the listener to do.” 

     

    Did he really believe in the normative / inductive / performative aspect of statements? If so, was this an impersonal or a personal teaching?



    Isn’t making that evaluation of weighing (do’s and don’ts / causation) in itself something that strains the senses and proves a point here? 
     

    Doesn’t evaluation always rely on the personal sense data? What is it that evaluates when there is none of those?

     


     

    —

    Disagreements, corrections and interpretation welcome.

     

    So sad to see so many contradictions in my own questions, sorry. :( 

  11. Posted · Edited by S:C

    Quote

    So the Commentary’s explanation of the first category of discourse—that discourses whose meaning needs to be inferred can be equated with teachings expressed in conventional truths—is not borne out by the evidence in the Canon. And what’s especially notable is that in these, and in all other cases of this sort, the explanations giving the meaning to be inferred never say that self, beings, or persons do not exist.

     

    As for the second category—discourses whose meaning should not be drawn out any further—two examples stand out: In MN 136, a monk is asked, in personal terms, what one experiences after having performed an intentional action, and he responds that one experiences stress. The Buddha later rebukes him, but another monk comes to the first monk’s defense: Perhaps he was thinking of the impersonal teaching, “Whatever is felt comes under stress.” The Buddha rebukes this second monk, too, saying that when asked about the results of action, one is being asked about the three kinds of feeling—pleasant, painful, and neither—and so should respond as follows:

     

    “‘Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be felt as pleasure, one experiences pleasure. Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be felt as pain, one experiences pain. Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be felt as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, one experiences neither-pleasure-nor-pain.’” — MN 136

     

    Taking the second monk’s words as an explanation of the first monk’s words, it would count as a passage expressed in personal terms whose meaning is wrongly drawn out in impersonal terms. This means that the Buddha’s warning about wrongly drawing out the meaning of a discourse does not apply only to attempts to translate impersonal language into personal language. Other considerations—such as whether a teaching is appropriate to a particular context or purpose (attha)—can also play a determining role. Statements have to be judged not only as descriptive, but also as performative: what they induce the listener to do. If a person is told that all action leads to stress, that person will feel no reason to put forth the effort to act skillfully rather than unskillfully. This would get in the way of his making progress on the path.

    - https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Mirror_ofInsight/Section0005.html follow up question on the neighboring thread about the two truth doctrine text

    The bolded and italicized parts of this text from dhammatalks are only interpretational source and not primary canonical source? 
     

    Else, the question would be: who is doing the weighing / inducing / inferring / judging / considering of appropriation on the matters at hand? It would be a personal discourse about an impersonal discourse matter, no? Meaning can only be inferred in the personal language? So the interpreter did believe that the Buddha accepted personal valuations in the impersonal discourse? Else how could something be ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate’ in the impersonal discourse? 
    Did the Buddha believe that objective valuations exist, was he a metaethical cognitivist? Or did his ‘state’ transcend personality in that way that his statements are interpreted (by his followers) as impersonal still, even though uttered and evaluated through his process of sense features (non-being, as not grasping, but still physically alive).

    How can it be decidedly known if the first or second monk really did use an impersonal interpretation of a personal statement. 
    Where does the objectivity come from suddenly? Who is doing the evaluation? 

     

    Does anyone else see the contradiction (of the interpretation), or am I missing something? Should I reformulate for more clarity? - I’d like to invite @Taoist Texts , @stirling and @Mark Foote and whoever else feels concerned, @Apech (because the weighing of the feather in the Khonsu Mes thread by Ma’at comes to mind?) 

  15. Posted · Edited by S:C
    Adding and deletion. No offense, just hadn’t heart about the 16steps before

    On 1.11.2023 at 10:06 PM, Mark Foote said:

    The intent concentration consisted of sixteen thoughts, applied or sustained in the course of an in-breath or an out-breath.  

    I have had no instructions on the Pali Sermons, yet. When you speak of concentration, it seems to have a different meaning than in colloquial language? @Mark Foote Do you mean meditative states? Meditative states where senses are left behind? That’s what you mean with “there is a natural escape from agitation, dissipation, distraction--priceless!”?


    Do I understand it correctly, that he followed a rule of thought during every breath, and among those sixteen in the process?
     

    Edit: it actually is a method of sixteen steps, - not in one breath, but over a series of breaths, that can be read up here: https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Anapanasati

     

    Dissipation, distraction and decay is a scary thing to fully embrace, imo, as is passivity and planlessness or lack of drives. @steve It seems kinda sad, too. Need for trust in the process to reverse itself again, at some point. 

     

  16. Posted

    How can we best adapt to changes of intensity on the path? 
     

    Do we always have to feel the contrast of what we have felt before, like a hidden pendulum swinging back to an equilibrium? 
     

    After extreme agitation must follow extreme calm? After focus must follow dissipation/distraction? 

  21. Posted · Edited by stellarwindbubble

    For a long time I went for oats (either made warm with milk or water) and some fruits. Can't do that everyday, it is so sticky.
    Don't like bread with cheese, marmelade etc. Ended up with some amaranth, buckweath and millet heated with water and rasperrys/or apples, that's okay.

     

    But I am still curious: what are your favorite breakfast dishes?

    Warm or cold?

    Did you consciously choose the contents or is it more a habitual (sweet tooth) thing?

    Did you import some recipies from asian countries?

    Do you preprep the night before or fresh in the morning.

     

    Thanks (I really need inspiration here...)

     

  23. Posted · Edited by stellarwindbubble

    10 minutes ago, thelerner said:

    and letting go.

    I do have to remember that part now and then. Thank you. 

    Besides walking meditation (that you mentioned elsewhere) which technique do you do or recommend for that part of letting go / non-reaching? 
     

    So awareness and state of mind is not a technique to you (hence the differentiation) ?

  24. Posted · Edited by stellarwindbubble

    13 hours ago, Nungali said:

    'Having a rational life'  - in the context of eudamonia

    This is interesting too, thanks, we have different perspectives of rationality. One of those that I carry around with me correlates with what I wrote in another recent thread. You could exchange the word awareness with rationality. 
     

     

    Quote

    What is awareness rationality anyways? Recognizing the contents of the personal five (or more senses) simultaneously for a reasonable amount of time? Or is it transcending the five (or more) senses beyond space and time? What Mr. Hume and Mr. Bohm would call the foundational ground (being empty). 

     


    I don’t know if that serves as a persuasive purpose/meaning for life (guess I ain’t very good at it), but it’s possible to try. 

    • Like 1